From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 5 14:54:13 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C414014BD5 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:54:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA02715; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:47:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Matthew Dillon Cc: David Schwartz , Peter Wemm , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? In-Reply-To: <199906051833.LAA15517@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I think part of the solution is a new class of keepalives.. With this new class, a keepalive is sent every N second (3600?) but if no response is heard, no action is taken. The only action that is taken is if a NAK is recieved in response. Most IP addresses woudl be re-used within a few days, so even if someonen hangs up, in most cases SOMETHING will respond with a NACK withinthe next day or two. julian On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > : There is no logical reason for a well-designed web server to enable > :keepalives. Of course, they don't hurt anything. > : > :... > : > : Agreed. Telnetd is the exception, keepalives are great for it. For > :everything else, almost, data timeouts make far more sense. And keepalives > :will do nothing, but won't hurt anything. > : > : As I have said before, any application that does not implement data > :timeouts for all states, and does not enable keepalives is BROKEN. > > You are missing the point, big time. > > There are hundreds of programmers writing hundreds of servers, most > written by third-parties. New ones pop up every day. Nobody > is going to go through and make sure all of them turn on keepalives. > Nobody is going to go and try to contact all the authors involved to > try to get them to implement their own timeouts. There are, in fact, > many servers where implementing a timeout is *inappropriate*. > > ssh, rsh, and telnet for example. nntp is an example of a server where > the timeout depends on the use. Some ISP's might want to implement a > timeout, others might not. At BEST I decided to *not* have a timeout... > people can stay connected and idle for hours if they want. > > Your 'solution' is no solution at all. You aren't thinking through the > problem carefully enough. > > The Keepalive capability exists for a reason. The original reasons for > not turning them on by default all those years ago no longer exist, and > the only reasons people come up with now are extremely shallow and > uninformed. > > I have yet to hear a single informed opinion against turning on > keepalives. > > All I hear is mob-mentality stuff: people with opinions not backed by > real facts, or people with opinions based on assumptions that are > incorrect. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message